DOI Finalizes Long-Awaited Modernization of Type A Natural Resource Damage Assessment Regulations
August 03, 2026 —
Amanda G. Halter, Ashleigh K. Myers & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogFor nearly three decades, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) simplified “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations were available more in theory than in practice, constrained by dated models, narrow geographic applicability and a $100,000 cap that rarely matched the economics of modern environmental claims. DOI has now finalized revisions to the Type A natural resource damages assessment procedures under 43 C.F.R. Part 11 for hazardous substance releases under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA), with the final rule published in the
Federal Register on July 13, 2026 and scheduled to become effective August 12, 2026.
As discussed
previously, DOI has sought to modernize what it views as an “inefficient and inflexible” process and restore the Type A procedure to its intended role as a more streamlined pathway for smaller, less contentious NRD claims. The final rule adopts a $5 million default damages threshold, allows use above that amount if all parties agree, clarifies that Type A may be used in all environments and for all natural resource types, and removes legacy model appendices that had tethered the process to outdated formulas.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury,
Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury and
Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable
May 14, 2026 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable.
During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLPMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Daily Journal Publishes Article by Brenda Radmacher on Proposed Overhaul of California Construction Defect Law
June 29, 2026 —
Brenda Radmacher - The Construction SeytDaily Journal (California) featured an article by Construction Law partner
Brenda Radmacher, “A new path for construction defects in California.” The piece, published on June 15, 2026, examines Assembly Bill 1903 and its potential to significantly reshape California’s construction defect framework, particularly for common interest properties.
The article highlights how AB 1903 would overhaul the state’s current right-to-repair system by mandating completion of prelitigation procedures, raising requirements for defect claims, strengthening developers’/builders’ rights to repair, and introducing a voluntary “certified building” program. The legislation aims to rebalance competing interests by reducing litigation-driven costs while preserving protections for homeowners.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brenda Radmacher, Seyfarth Shaw LLPMs. Radmacher may be contacted at
bradmacher@seyfarth.com
Safeguarding Your Privileged Construction Information With a Clawback Agreement
June 08, 2026 —
Laura Fraher - Construction ExecutiveFor contractors and construction executives, a
dispute that escalates to litigation brings risks that go well beyond the jobsite. When a dispute escalates to litigation, the attorney-client privilege is a critical protection to safeguard your interests. Disclosing privileged material can undermine your litigation position and, in some cases, negatively impact your business. In the construction context, this often includes sensitive communications about project delays, defect investigations, safety incidents or payment disputes—materials that can significantly impact both liability and reputation.
During litigation, the discovery process requires the exchange of documents and data with your adversary. If privileged materials are disclosed to your adversary during discovery you risk the waiver of your privilege, which in plain terms means you lose the protection of the privilege and make the privileged information, and in some cases all other information related to the same subject matter, available to your adversary. It is critical that your attorney take steps to protect against the unintentional disclosure of privileged materials during discovery to avoid a waiver.
Reprinted courtesy of
Laura Fraher, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...Ms. Fraher may be contacted at
lfraher@barclaydamon.com
WSHB Managing Partner Chad Dunigan Named Finalist for Jerrold S. Oliver "Ollie" Award of Excellence
May 12, 2026 —
Wood Smith Henning BermanChad Dunigan, Managing Partner of Wood Smith Henning & Berman's Orlando, Florida, office, has been selected as one of just four finalists for the prestigious Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence, affectionately known in the construction defect community as the "Ollie" Award. This distinguished honor recognizes individuals who have made exceptional contributions and demonstrated unwavering dedication to advancing the field of construction defect law.
Named in honor of the late Judge Jerrold S. Oliver, a revered founder of alternative dispute resolution in construction defect claims and litigation, the Ollie award symbolizes loyalty, commitment, and trust within the industry. Judge Oliver's legacy as a staunch believer in the resolution process continues to inspire professionals who strive for excellence in the construction defect community.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wood Smith Henning Berman
Rogue AI — Is Your Company Prepared?
September 28, 2026 —
Michael S. Levine - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe recent wave of "rogue AI" incidents should be a wake-up call for every business leader and risk manager paying attention.
Recent accounts document a sobering reality: AI systems from multiple leading AI developers have each escaped controlled testing environments and caused real-world harm—compromising outside infrastructure, exploiting third-party vulnerabilities, and even canceling another person's reservation to help a user jump a waitlist. These aren't hypotheticals from a sci-fi movie. They happened this summer.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLPMr. Levine may be contacted at
mlevine@hunton.com
A Permitting Base Checklist for Data Centers and Power Plants
June 02, 2026 —
Michael S. McDonough, Stephen J. Humes & Stacey C. Wright - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThere is a lot of talk these days about “license to operate” for data centers, meaning management of the relationships with stakeholders and broader communities concerning both the benefits and adverse consequences of locating a facility in a particular locale. Here, we are speaking of “license to operate” more literally—namely, the legal and regulatory permitting and approval requirements for a privately owned data center whether by itself or colocated with a power generating plant.
Our Base Checklist includes generally and potentially applicable permitting requirements for development and operation, using California as an example. (Taking legal authority Frank Sinatra out of context, “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.”) The actual requirements for a given facility would depend, in part, on local law, including planning and zoning laws and plans, and the environment of the site. Just as examples, additional permitting and mitigation requirements might apply if sensitive receptors are located nearby (e.g., noise mitigation for residential dwellings), if sensitive and protected biological resources (e.g., jurisdictional waters and/or protected species) would be impacted, or if the present or former land uses require additional measures (e.g., hazardous materials remediation, mitigation for conversion of prime farmland, or protection of cultural resources). The scope of permit requirements would ultimately be determined by the applicable regulatory agencies and by the lead and responsible agencies under the applicable state environmental land use regime—in our reference case here, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury,
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury and
Stacey C. Wright, Pillsbury
Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Wright may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Substantial Evidence of Flood Loss is Not a Substitute for Required Proof of Loss
April 20, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the insurer properly denied the insured’s claim for loss due to flood because a proof of loss was never submitted. Bay Haven at Coco Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6847 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2026).
Bay Haven managed several condo buildings. When Hurricane Ian hit, it caused significant flood damage to these properties. Bay Haven held federal flood insurance policies through Hartford under “Write-Your-Own” policies. This meant Hartford was essentially a fiscal agent that managed policies and handled claims but paid them using federal funds.
Following the storm, FEMA extended the usual 60-day deadline for filing a proof of loss to one year, or until September 28, 2023. Bay Haven did not submit its proofs of loss until November 2023. FEMA granted an extension but only for the specific amounts in the November requests. Hartford did not waive the 60-day proof of loss requirement for any other proof of loss. Hartford paid the amounts reflected in the November submissions.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
